2008 September 04 Thursday
Roissy On Sarah Palin

Washington DC pick-up artist and human nature realist Roissy takes a look at why the reactions to Sarah Palin are so extreme.

Sarah Palin has been in the news lately so Iíve decided to give it the Roissy treatment ó one long kiss on the neck and an ass cheek squeeze.

Sheís a palinpsest ó people see reflected in her their particular American narrative. Why has she commanded so much attention? Because in her life, her mannerisms, her morals, and her views she is the embodiment of everything evil or everything good. Her existence alone reignites the culture wars.

For this reason she'd be the best part of a McCain presidency. If she can keep liberal whites livid then she'll earn her pay and then some.

Effeminate males stand in contrast to Sarah Palin.

In general, liberal white men are more effete than conservative white men. This has been my observation. I can tell with 80% accuracy whether a male caller to a radio talk show is liberal or conservative just based on the tone of his voice. Liberal ó mellifluous, sing-songy, whiny, high-pitched. Conservative ó baritone, even, throaty, resonant. Sarah Palin drives the point home even further. Her ability to field dress a moose in waist-deep snow strikes at the sissified soul of the simpering suckass conformist and makes him lash out like a stuck piglet.

Beta males are not Palin's biggest opponents. Urban women who're losing their shot at reproduction do not like the reminder that she provides.

But Sarah Palinís worst enemy is not the mincing liberal betaboy, oh no. Itís the childless, career-tracked, urban slut machine, government-as-daddy-and-husband-substitute, spinsterette. Palin shits grizzly-sized dung all over that lifestyle with her outdoorsiness, large brood, and prole tastes. The thing about her they really canít swallow are her FIVE kids. Thereís no better way to remind a hip clubgoing single chick in the city who loves to travel and sip pinot noir of her impending infertility and genetic obsolescence than with the image of a woman whoís chosen not to ignore her biological imperative in favor of playing the field indefinitely.

I think Roissy might be rifting off of a recent Steve Sailer post where Steve says the hostile reaction to Sarah on the Left is all about white conservatives outbreeding white liberals.

Now, the Breeding Wars have moved into the political arena. Barack Obama launched his Presidential run at the 2004 Democratic convention by devoting the first 380 words of his speech to describing in great detail the two stocks from which he was crossbred. His message is that by uniting in his DNA the two races, he will end the racial conflict that has long plagued this land. (Noah should take a look at Henry VIIís speech ending Shakespeare's ďRichard IIIĒ for the classic expression of the logic of dynastic merger, in this case between the Lancasters and the Yorks.) Obama left out the part about his mom being 17 when she got pregnant and his father already being married with a kid and another on the way.

Palin has horned in on all that subliminal symbolism with her own. Sheís had five kids while shooting caribou (a picture of her and a daughter standing over a huge beast she shot is the LA Times most emailed article of the day even though it's not an article, just a picture) and throwing the crooks out, and now she has a 17-year-old daughter who is pregnant and will marry a handsome hockey player.

The Blue Whites are alarmed and outraged to be reminded that the Red Whites can afford to outbreed them and are outbreeding them. Modern people tell themselves they don't care about stuff like that, but they do, oh, they do.

Since conservative whites are making more babies than liberal whites the genetic factors that contribute to political orientation are going to shift the white vote rightward. Only immigration is preventing a full shift rightward in the nation as a whole.

Roissy's previously argued that the crowds will turn against alpha males if they mistreat women who come across as more feminine and maternal.

People will only turn against an alpha male when he attacks a weak woman.

Roissy thinks Sarah's strong maternal image makes her immune from serious criticism. So does Sarah the mom have more immunity from criticism than Barack the black?

This is Sarah Palinís anti-missile defense shield. She isnít weak, but she will be perceived as worthier of protection than her alpha male opponents. Her attractiveness, earthiness, motherhood, and gender means she will be almost impenetrable (heh) to frontal attacks, while affording her the latitude to fire at will.

Roissy points to Megan McArdle's evident discomfort with instinctual reactions to Sarah Palin.

As a person I like her. Politically, I dislike what she represents: populism, culture warmongering, and especially, the notion that if a woman is to hold power, she has to make herself non-threatening by emphasizing her domesticity and fertility. I donít blame her for doing these things, since they seem to work. But I donít like living in a society where this works.

So then Megan dislikes the results of evolution by natural selection. Roissy has realistic advice for Megan:

Megan, Iíve got news for you. There is no society where this doesnít work. Check your libertarian fantasies at the door because the frontline of human nature - and innate sex differences - is everywhere.

My problem with libertarianism is that its believers build their political philosophy around an unrealistic model of human nature. When libertarian principles are applied to all policy questions the result is damaging because humans do not react to libertarian policies in ways that further the cause of liberty. For example, open borders where all are allowed to immigrate will make the original citizens of a prosperous society less free. By seeking the impossible libertarians contribute to a loss of freedom, not a gain.

Megan's unhappiness with war mongering and popular reactions to a fertile woman ought to serve as reminder to her that when forming political views she needs to look at biological humans as they really are rather than ideological humans as she wishes them to be. The genetic factors at work which cause her fellow Americans to react to her evident dissatisfaction are not going away. No amount of rational argument is going to convert people into libertarians when they have strong instincts calling them to think and act otherwise.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 September 04 08:07 PM  Human Nature Mating


Comments
So Very Bitter said at September 4, 2008 8:50 PM:

It should also be noted that Palin flies in the face of the tired stereotype of liberal chick=hot; conservative chick=plain (if not ugly)/frumpy/overweight/jumper or muumuu

--when the truth is more like, as John Derbyshire put it, liberal women are not better-looking, just *easier*.

Sorry left-wingers in the Democrat Party and media, you got a bona fide MILF on your hands, who unlike your heroine HRC did not need her hubby to get her where she is. Deal with it.

Stephen said at September 5, 2008 12:53 AM:

Except for the drivel coming out of her mouth, she presents very well. I think she'll play well in the electorate.

Audacious Epigone said at September 5, 2008 3:14 AM:

McCain has seven kids. Is it because they're all out of the house that Palin is seen as the fertile one, or because McCain is already a known quantity, or because she's female? I think the latter is what's crucial. The Seventh Heaven thing wasn't enough for Romney to overcome his Mormonism. Biden had four kids (although one died), so he's just a step behind. Obama is the only one of the four in this election who represents the whiterpeople tendency portrayed by the intellectual couple in Idiocracy.

black sea said at September 5, 2008 3:44 AM:

In addition to all the stuff mentioned in the Roissy post and accompanying thread, it's worth point out that Palin and her family represent a working class family of "abundance." They work hard and they make very good money, particularly by working class standards. They can afford to raise five kids, and if one of the kids get's knocked up, well, they can handle that too. She'll get married and she and the father will start a life together, with no doubt some financial and moral support from the family. They may seem a little reckless by modern (i.e. timid) American suburban standards, but they don't seem afraid.

This election will probably be decided by working and lower-ish middle class whites in the swing states of the industrial heartland (I'm including Pennsylvania here). From the standpoint of political theater (which is all we're really talking about) Palin plays enormously well with this demographic. These people have taken a beating the past 30 years; their jobs are playing out or being shipped overseas; if they do the sort of work their parents did, they don't make anything like the same kind of income, nor do they enjoy the equivalent quality of life. They're much more focused on what they're likely to lose over the next five years rather than what they might gain. Bear in mind, I'm not talking about the whole of the electorate or even all of the electorate in these states. I'm talking about working to lower middle class voters whose values are mostly Republican, but whose economic fears steer them toward the Democrats.

Plain is a powerful antidote to all this. Her (no-doubt glamourized) personal and political biography will remind many such voters of their childhoods, when working people made decent money, jobs were fairly easy to come by, and neighborhoods were friendly and safe. These neighborhoods were often run by Sarah Palin types, women who stayed at home, took care of the kids, and, then, once the kids were old enough, switched to a paycheck job without blinking an eye. All of this will resonate very well with such voters, and tap into their nostalgia for a less anxious and uncertain America.

By the way, none of this is to say that she'd make an effective president. I'm just examining how she plays symbolically with a crucial voting block.

Audacious Epigone said at September 5, 2008 4:05 AM:

I should note that McCain has six biological kids, one is adopted.

Ned said at September 5, 2008 5:16 AM:

Libertarianism is like whiskey - a bit now and then is OK, maybe even good for you. But you don't want to drink the whole bottle at once.

Big Bill said at September 5, 2008 5:18 AM:

The liberal female response is fascinating. My father told me of college in the late 40s. Women were shamelessly looking for their Mrs degree. They would date a promising candidate (my father) a couple times and quiz him to see how ready he was to settle down. If he wasn't, they would kindly decline future dates rather than linger forever. They were not afraid to express their desires for family.

By the time I reached my father's age in the late 70s, women were already sneering at the Mrs degree and playing the drunken party/career girl -- equal to any man. But deep inside not much hadd changed. They just weren't talking about it openly.

The cognitive dissonance with which they faced their impending sterility, pretending to be the supercharged ball busting party/career girl on the one hand, and on the other hand lying awake at night wondering when they would find a man to take care of them and impregnate them, made for strange dating times, and certainly a lot of dishonesty in romance.

Someone like Sarah Palin is a threat and a tragic reminder of the paths they did not take.

Rick Darby said at September 5, 2008 5:41 AM:

Yes, but.

Some people want to have large families, some want small families, some don't want to have kids. All those choices are okay when they are based on the temperament, income, and personality of the adults involved.

But I get very uncomfortable when I read about winning the culture war by outbreeding bi-coastal urban liberals or immigrants. Propagation should not be an ideological weapon. Children are people, not game pieces. And overpopulation makes the environment more impersonal and stressful for everyone, regardless of political orientation.

The first thing we should do ó probably the main thing we need to do ó is reduce immigration to nearly zero, except for a very few with high IQs and important skills. Then, people can sort themselves out procreatively as they choose and the overall population number will be in a more or less steady state, or even decline, and the quality of life will improve.

dchamil said at September 5, 2008 7:06 AM:

A breeding contest to see who can produce the most children is a recipe for an Asian population density. Surely this is not where we want to go.

blue said at September 5, 2008 8:54 AM:

Audacious Epigone:

No, McCain has 4 biological kids.

I think the first wife brought two children from a previous marriage, whom he adopted. He had one kid with her.

He had 3 kids with the second wife. They adoped a kid.

green mamba said at September 5, 2008 12:06 PM:

Thanks for presenting a needed perspective, Rick Darby.

Dragon Horse said at September 5, 2008 5:28 PM:

"In general, liberal white men are more effete than conservative white men. This has been my observation. I can tell with 80% accuracy whether a male caller to a radio talk show is liberal or conservative just based on the tone of his voice. Liberal ó mellifluous, sing-songy, whiny, high-pitched. Conservative ó baritone, even, throaty, resonant. Sarah Palin drives the point home even further. Her ability to field dress a moose in waist-deep snow strikes at the sissified soul of the simpering suckass conformist and makes him lash out like a stuck piglet."

That's only true for whites. That is not true for blacks and Hispanics obviously.

"Obama left out the part about his mom being 17 when she got pregnant and his father already being married with a kid and another on the way."

That was not immoral in his country and there is no documentation that shows if she was aware of this or not.

"The Blue Whites are alarmed and outraged to be reminded that the Red Whites can afford to outbreed them and are outbreeding them. Modern people tell themselves they don't care about stuff like that, but they do, oh, they do."

Roissy lives in DC, I live in the DC metro area...I have never heard any "blue whites" talk like this and I know quite a bit of them. Almost every white person I have met in this area is a very liberal Democrat and "population dynamics" never come up but for illegal immigration. Who is he referring to "they do..."? I know quite a few women (or have met) in the DC area (and NYC) that don't even want children, it is not an issue of cost of living envy...most of these women are so career oriented they don't want to marry or have a kid, if they do have one, it is usually one...well unless the "infertility" medcine makes them have twins in their late 30's/early 40's.

"Roissy thinks Sarah's strong maternal image makes her immune from serious criticism. "

LOL...does Roissy watch the news in the morning before work? She has been getting a lot of criticism and has already started to cry "sexism" not that female Democratic operatives and reporters give a crap about that, they are ripping her more than the women.

"My problem with libertarianism is that its believers build their political philosophy around an unrealistic model of human nature. When libertarian principles are applied to all policy questions the result is damaging because humans do not react to libertarian policies in ways that further the cause of liberty."

Randall, I agree with this, but I think I would add that "most people". Usually the ones advocating libertarianism have the qualities that, where if they lived in a nation of people just like them, it would work. Problem is that Libertarians tend to be smarter than average, but also more entrepreneurial, personally responsible, etc. There problem is they assume everyone thinks like them and if they don't they just have not had the proper incentive (less government). LOL If we went completely libertarian in the U.S. I am 100% sure in 2 years we would have a sky high crime rate, vigilantism out the ying-yang, starving people in the street, etc. Likely people would be begging for a communist government after it is all over.

Stephen said at September 5, 2008 7:18 PM:

scatter 100 people on an Island and the first thing they do is cluster into structured social groups and then they start making rules. Libertarianism is for cats, not humans.

Randall Parker said at September 5, 2008 8:05 PM:

Dragon Horse,

Barack's mother wasn't in Kenya when she got pregnant.

As for what is moral in Kenya: Do we want to copy the Kenyans? How's that working for them?

Sarah immune to criticism: But is the criticism working? That's where the immunity comes from. The Democrats have gone overboard in their criticism and this makes people sympathize with and like Sarah.

Libertarianism in a nation of libertarians: I'm not sure how well it would work. Interesting question. But without genetic engineering we aren't going to find out.

Lyle said at September 5, 2008 10:53 PM:

I think we just made a mistake electing a governor without foreign policy experience. I'm not anxious to make that mistake again.

It is disappointing to me that her looks and gender are at issue. Personally, I'm just interested in her stances on policies, and whether or not I think she would make reasonable decisions on foreign and domestic affairs.

And while Barack does not have the foreign experience I would like to see, being editor of the Harvard Law Review demonstrates the ability to quickly understand new law issues and arguments - something I want in my president. McCain has a great deal of experience getting things done in Washington and has demonstrated that he has the ability to work with a Democratic house and senate. Biden, well, he compares well with Palin.

I guess I just don't see what Palin brings to the table. A lawyer's training in writing or recognizing what will be a good law? No. An understanding of foreign policy? Not that I've seen. Experience at all of my daily life in a large city? Hah. But most of all, I don't see that she would understand the overreaches the Bush administration has made in either domestic or foreign policy. I believe McCain does. And that's what it comes down to for me... do I want to take the risk that someone with even less experience than Bush had will end up in the White House.

m said at September 6, 2008 6:20 AM:

McArdle is voting O because Class trumps Ideology.

McArdle,trendy,upscale urbanite,MBA Penn St.,pundit.

Obama,trendy,upscale urbanite,prep school,Columbia,Harvard Law,politician

Palin,suburban,middle class,blue collar mate,5 kids,PTA,community collge,U. of Idaho.

McArdle is a LEFT-libertarian,basically,a cheap leftie who won't pass up a chance to vote for a guy who looks black but is culturally white,trendy upper middle class and Urban.He IS loft/condo/resturant/coffee shop/wine bar Urban.He is NOT ghetto/baggy pants/sideways hat/hip-hop/cheap bling Urban.

The sight of him attempting to do hip-hop is on par with watching AlGore do the macarena.
Not pretty,look away.

So McArdle the Libertarian says:

"Barry O may be a radical left loon who will raise taxes thru the roof,regulate the economy to death,subject his opponents to political show trials,pander to our enemies,ban guns and free speech and conscript high school kids to involuntary servitude to the state,BUT,he's also a trendy urbanite who understands how critical the price of arugala is."

"Problem is that Libertarians tend to be smarter than average"
Oh,please

"Libertarian" is the political equivalent of Bigfoot,a few plaster casts and some hair strands is not convincing evidence any such critter exists.
But I must say those recordings of the alleged mating calls are interesting.

Audacious Epigone said at September 6, 2008 10:05 AM:

Blue,

You're right, thanks for correcting me on that.

So Very Bitter said at September 6, 2008 1:07 PM:

Lyle, I would suggest that any experience Obama gained as editor of the HLR is as relevant to the presidency as Bush's Harvard M.B.A.

(In fairness, McCain's time in the Hanoi Hilton is similarly irrelevant.)

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I think Michelle Obama is a looker too. However, setting politics (and even looks) aside, if you could imagine both ladies --born in the same year, no less-- in the dating pool right now, which one would have the more "serious issues" that would send any sane man running away?

Spengler's most recent column touches on the theme a little. . . .

Big Bill said at September 6, 2008 7:46 PM:

DragonHorse: "That was not immoral in his country and there is no documentation that shows if she was aware of this or not."

You mean they may BOTH be guilty of the felony of bigamy? What a lovely family! And surely her mother and father must have been in on it, too. Then again, maybe she scammed her parents so she could get it regular like. As Obama explained, his mama had a thing for dark meat, bigtime. If Obama tells it like it is, being a babymama to a brutha -- married or not -- might have been right up her alley. Its one of the things I would love to ask his granny about, but she be layin' low right now.

The way I read it he wanted some white stuff, got it from a teenager in Hawaii, gave her a marriage to get it regular, and then moved on.

The morality point is a good one. For Mexican peasants, abducting and raping young girls is a "moral" romantic technique. In Mexico it is called "rapto". When accused of rape in the USA, several of them have used a defense of relative morality. It has not worked yet, to my knowledge, but I expect it will work pretty soon, perhaps in Southern California or Arizona, or some state that becomes Mexicanated enough that their moral and legal systems becomes defacto Mexican by jury nullification. Already in France they do not punish black polygamists. In Minnesota, an estimated 98% of Somalis hack off their daughters' private parts while the welfare system, doctors, police and hospitals deliberately look the other way.

There is a name for that, right? Where your tribal leader gets to make the rules for your racial group? Is it called the "millet system"?

Dragon Horse said at September 6, 2008 9:56 PM:

Bill and Randall:

My my amazing how critical thinking just flies out the window when bias takes over, typical. My point about polygamy is not "legality" it is an issue of morality. According to Obama Sr.s cultural understanding it was not an immoral act. This is not an issue of what is a "more efficient way to live" or the "best model". I was speaking strictly about morality.

Also we don't know what the age of consent was in Hawaii in 1959. If Obama Jr.s mother was 17 or 18, that could be (as it is in many states today) perfectly legal and her family had met this man (according to Obama's book) when she and him had first started dating. There is no indication that they did not know Obama Sr's age or that they objected to that. What they did say was Obama's maternal grandmother had some "issues" but didn't say anything and the father seemed somewhat concerned but not really upset or anything as he seemed to like Obama Sr (it seems on Dreams of My Father this is a common theme, the mother was more conservative). In 1959, a 23 year old dating a 17 year old was not strange or bizarre in many (if not most) areas of the country.

Oh and Bill...grow up you sound ridiculously base and ignorant, definately left of center thinking...as in left of center on a IQ Bell Curve

"In Minnesota, an estimated 98% of Somalis hack off their daughters' private parts while the welfare system, doctors, police and hospitals deliberately look the other way."

What does this have to do with polygamy or Barak Obama's parents. Do you have an evidence that Obama Sr. sexually abused women or hacked off their body parts? LOL Forget it.

"For Mexican peasants, abducting and raping young girls is a "moral" romantic technique."

This is also true in rural Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. I find that disturbing.

Polygamy I don't find disturbing as people who "serial marry and date" are basically doing just that. 50% of Americans get divorced and it is not uncommon that their are children from 1 or 2 previous marriages. So the result is similar...they are just doing it in session and not at once. Those religious conservative offshoot of Mormons who just got in trouble in Texas were polygamous. They just had one legal wife, the others claimed to be single mothers and claimed welfare payments. Those people bothered me because they were forcing young girls to marry old men.

My opinion is that if you are an adult (or old enough to consent under the law) do what you want as long as you aren't hurting me (such as the case of welfare fraud above). I don't care if a man wants to live with 3 women and call them a wife and have 12 kids that they all take care of, not my business, as long as no one is being forced in this situation.

Randall Parker said at September 6, 2008 10:57 PM:

Dragon Horse,

I didn't appeal to legality. I explicitly mentioned morality:

As for what is moral in Kenya: Do we want to copy the Kenyans? How's that working for them?

So your point about this is really issue of morality and not legality is not a response to what I actually said.

Neither of Barack's parents are admirable. They both basically abandoned their kid to differing extents. The father was far worse than the mother. As for what is moral in Kenya: It is not the sort of place that serves as an uplifting model of how to build better societies.

Big Bill said at September 8, 2008 5:41 PM:

Look, the Somalis hack off their daughters naughty bits in America because it is "moral" back home in Somalia, just like Obama Sr. married twice because it was moral back home in Kenya.

And (to push your "morality" analogy) while young Somalis girls do scream and writhe in agony when held down by their mothers and sisters and aunts for mutilation, eventually they too are brainwashed (enculturated?) to do the same thing to their daughters in the fullness of time.

Now, since they can chop of their daughters cl!ts to destroy female sexual pleasure, AND since their daughters eventually learn to love that part of their culture AND to do the same butchery to their OWN daughters, where does a good libertarian stand?

Do we tolerate the chopping and hacking in America because "it seems to work for them"? Because "they seem to like it"?

Frankly, I cannot see the difference between your arguments for understanding or tolerating polygamy that cannot be equally applied to female genital mutilation.

But maybe there is some subtile difference I just don't get. Please enlighten me.

Mind you, I respect their culture. We have no right nor duty to rescue their women from them or try to civilize them. They can continue in their backward and barbarian ways forever as far as I am concerned.

But when their culture breaks down and collapses in violence and suffering as it has in Somalia, we have no need nor interest nor duty to import or tolerate that sickness to our own land, no matter how much the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society makes off each Somali. And it would behoove us to tell them they will go to prison for pulling that sh!t here on American soil before they come here. Selah.

Regarding polygamy, we already see the polygamous African pattern of thousands of years repeated in our ghettoes. The women take care of the children and tend the fields, and the men hang out, drink, and get the women pregnant. Why on earth would we want to permit that to continue, particularly when it is at our expense.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©